New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5005, 9 April 1877, Page 4

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1877.

A great deal of public interest that had not, however, been made publicly apparent previously, has been plainly manifested since the first remarks of the New Zealand Times on the waterworks contract. It is regrettable however that in some cases that interest should have shown itself in a guise discreditable to the public discussion of any matter, and should have seemed to betray a sensitiveness on the part of one Corporation official not to be expected when nothing whatever unfair had been attributed to him. Under these circumstances, in resuming our part in the discussion, we may be permitted to restate the, case so far, and to point out our own position in regard to it, in order that in the full publicity which wc consider the public interest demands, and which shall therefore be given to this affair, there may be no misconception on the part of unprejudiced or uninterested persons. Our reason, then, for first notioing the matter at all was, as we stated at the time, the fact that a very large undercurrent of talk was going on in the city about it, and that it seemed to us that it would be well if the immediate questions which caused that “talk” were satisfactorily, cleared up, as we do not say they may not be. In pursuance of our idea, and acting in the public interests, we asked the City Engineer if it were true, as we had heard it stated, that he had told at least one intending tenderer for the new works in connection with the Wellington water supply, that the gravel to be used in the concrete, which forms a large portion of the dam, should not be taken from the locality of the works themselves. Since it seems that the present contractor has been permitted to use gravel from that locality, the importance of the question can be seen at a glance... . That it was important was shown by the fact that his Worship the Mayor immediately wrote to the City Engineer on the subject, but unfortunately, instead of putting our question, put one as different from it as chalk is proverbially said to be different from cheese. It would seem as if in connection with this matter the perspicacity with which even his enemies credit him, had deserted our Chief Magistrate, and for once he was unable to understand a plain question piit in pretty plain English. It was unfortunate thdt the City Engineer in answering the question put by the Mayor should have lost his temper, and, apparently resolved to make a martyr of himself where no one intended to make a martyr of him, seemed to view himself as suspected of the commission of some fearful atrocities, and accordingly defended himself against nothing, at the same time letting the cat out of the bag with a vengeance so far as some people, whom he called “disappointed contractor,” were concerned. Of, course it is obvious that we have nothing to do with all this, either with disappointed contractors or with the sensitiveness of the City Engineer. At the same time, we may in a friendly manner point out to the latter that as a public servant connected with public works, he is quite open to legitimate criticism; though we have not even criticised him, but have merely asked his help to clear up questions that for the public good it is desirable should be cleared up. Now therefore we may be permitted to say that the matter affecting this waterworks contract stands thus: First there is the original question put by us. Then follows another statement that the City Engineer informed some intending tenderers for the water supply works that they would not be permitted to use the clay adjoining the works for “puddle,' and yet that the present contractor is permitted to use this clay. Next is the statement that thfe specifications show a depth of foundation of twenty-five feet, and yet no such depth has been gone to. It is admitted that the work, as being carried out, in this latter respect and in others, differs very materially from the specifications, and we know that no divergence from them was allowed without the excellent authority of Mr. Blackett, consulting engineer. The case, therefore, simplystated, stands thus: The alterations, we may admit, are decided improvements, at the same time that the contractor may have very much benefited pecuniarily by their being allowed. But is it not a pity that these improvements should have only been discovered after the contract was let, and that such very material of plans should have then occurred; since had tho original specifications been in accordance with the works as at present being carried out, there seems very little reason to doubt that they could have been executed at a much less cost to tho city than they now involve? That is the question as it occurs to us. We have no objection to Mr. Saunders as a business man benefiting by the change in the carrying out of the works, if he does so benefit. Wo impugn no one’s honesty of purpose or good faith, but still we do say that the public has a right to know if it be true that all the matters wo have stated are as they have been for a long time stated in this city; and no one will deny that it is a very great pity, if the present water supply works cost the contractor a good deal less than those originally specified, that the city should have practically to pay for an apparent want of provision, and for a change which might have been prevented if the ideas that occasioned ic had only suggested themselves before the contract was let. That

is all we have to say on the subject at present. It is one quite deserving of consideration by the public, and such consideration may in all probability induce comment from us.